Suna v Bridgestone Australia Ltd - [2008] QSC 125

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Suna v Bridgestone Australia Ltd [2008] QSC 125

PARTIES:

BRETT SUNA
(plaintiff)
v
BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1303/07

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 & 4 April 2008

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $407,775.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES – where the plaintiff suffered personal injury at work on two occasions– where only the quantum of damages was in issue – whether the injury causing loss was a result of compensable incidents at work or a pre-existing degenerative condition – whether the plaintiff’s pre-existing back pain would have caused the plaintiff to cease work even if he had suffered the injuries at work

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – MITIGATION OF DAMAGES – where plaintiff suffered personal injury at work on two occasions– where only the quantum of damages was in issue – where the plaintiff has a residual but unexploited earning capacity – whether the plaintiff has made an election to remain at home unconnected to the existence of any compensable injury.

Kerr v Queensland Rail[2007] QSC 402; SC Number 7487 of 2006, 14 December 2007, considered

Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34, followed

COUNSEL:

R J Lynch for the plaintiff
R C Morton for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Gouldson Legal for the plaintiff
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the defendant

The plaintiff is a 40 year old married man with three children aged 11, 9 and 5 years who sustained personal injury on two occasions while working as a storeman for the defendant at its warehouse at Nudgee Road, Hendra.

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Morton, for the defendant, stated that liability was no longer an issue between the parties. It is, however, necessary to set out what occurred in order to understand the medical evidence and the issues that are in contest about quantum.

The defendant supplied tyres of various sizes from its warehouse to industry. The plaintiff had been employed as a storeman with the defendant since 13 November 1995. This involved manual handling of tyres, loading and unloading trucks with tyres and moving stock around the shed, sometimes using a forklift. On 11 July 2002 (when he was 34 years) at about 6.15 am the plaintiff was attempting to move manually a light truck tyre weighing about 40 kilograms from an upper cage containing tyres. In order to dislodge it he climbed on to the lower cage and attempted to retrieve the tyre. As he did so he slipped and fell backwards to the ground, landing on his feet, a distance of approximately…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Suna v Bridgestone Australia Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QSC 125
Decision Date: 6 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Suna sought damages from Bridgestone Australia Ltd for injuries sustained at work. Suna had suffered personal injury in two separate incidents at work and was awarded compensation for the loss of earnings and earning capacity resulting from those injuries. Bridgestone contested the quantum of damages, arguing that Suna's injuries were either not caused by the work incidents or were exacerbated by a pre-existing degenerative condition. The court was required to determine whether Suna's pre-existing back pain would have led him to cease work even in the absence of the injuries sustained at work, and if Suna had mitigated his losses by electing to remain at home.

The court considered the evidence regarding Suna's pre-existing condition and whether it would have led him to cease work even without the work-related injuries. The court also assessed whether Suna had made an election to remain at home unconnected to the existence of any compensable injury, which would have implications for the mitigation of damages. The court held that Suna's pre-existing back pain did not independently cause him to cease work and that his decision to remain at home was connected to his compensable injuries.

After considering the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the court determined that Suna was entitled to damages for the loss of earnings and earning capacity resulting from the compensable injuries, taking into account his unexploited earning capacity. The court awarded Suna damages in the sum of $407,775.

The court ordered that judgment be entered for Suna against Bridgestone Australia Ltd in the sum of $407,775, representing compensation for the loss of earnings and earning capacity resulting from the compensable injuries sustained at work. The court's decision recognised Suna's entitlement to damages while considering the impact of his pre-existing condition and his election to remain at home.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $407,775.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Suna v Bridgestone Australia Ltd [2008] QSC 125
PARTIES:	BRETT SUNA (plaintiff) v BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1303/07
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 & 4 April 2008
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $407,775.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES – where the plaintiff suffered personal injury at work on two occasions– where only the quantum of damages was in issue – whether the injury causing loss was a result of compensable incidents at work or a pre-existing degenerative condition – whether the plaintiff’s pre-existing back pain would have caused the plaintiff to cease work even if he had suffered the injuries at work DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – MITIGATION OF DAMAGES – where plaintiff suffered personal injury at work on two occasions– where only the quantum of damages was in issue – where the plaintiff has a residual but unexploited earning capacity – whether the plaintiff has made an election to remain at home unconnected to the existence of any compensable injury. Kerr v Queensland Rail[2007] QSC 402; SC Number 7487 of 2006, 14 December 2007, considered Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34, followed
COUNSEL:	R J Lynch for the plaintiff R C Morton for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Gouldson Legal for the plaintiff Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the defendant